custombioniclefandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:Neutrality policy...again
I know that this has been brought up before, but I feel it should be brought up again. this neutrality policy has really been bugging me, leaving viewers to make their own decisions is something I'm not against, but I feel it is unnecessary. I'm not saying we have to say whether a character is "evil' or not, I'm really just suggesting some neutral ground. as in "we can tell viewers whether a character is good or evil, but we don't have to say it if we don't want to. Again... I know this has been said before, i just have a strong opinion that we shouldn't have a neutrality policy. Voting Those for the Neutrality policy #Is there a rule about prohibiting bringing something to the MCC more than..er...twice? I think one needs to be put in place. Anyway, it's necessary because it is leaving the viewer to make their own opinion. There is no true "good" or "evil". So why brand them under a title that isn't true? Shadowmaster 01:52, October 14, 2011 (UTC) #Read my comment below. #'J97Auditore' 04:00, October 14, 2011 (UTC) #--[[User talk:Chicken Bond|'Welcome']] [[DR|'to']] [[BW|'the']] [[EU|'Fezpedia!']] 06:42, October 14, 2011 (UTC) #I see no reason to remove it completely. --http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110823111447/custombionicle/images/4/43/TDG.gif (Talk) 07:04, October 14, 2011 (UTC) #I've said it before, I will say it again. "good" and "evil" are subjective adjectives, and as such should not be on an informative encyclopedia. Honestly, I don't see why this keeps getting brought up. Wikipedia and BS01 have a neutrality policy, so why shouldn't we? VarkanaxTalk 12:32,10/14/2011 Those against the Neutrality policy Undecided #I'll think about it. BionicleKid Comments I'm a Christian, so I do believe that there is a distinction between good and evil. However, encyclopedias don't normally have that distinction. I'm too tired right now for decision-making, so I'll vote later. - BionicleKid Hm...I think we could work out some kind of distinction between "bible good" or "religion good" and the official definition of good and evil. Now, I think saying " is viewed as immoral by most" is fine. So is defining them. At least explain how they can be viewed as evil and not define them. "Cruel", "dark", "insane", "abusive", and many others are how you can explain in substitution for "evil" and "good". Good and Evil aren't anything but beliefs, a state of mind. Good and Evil don't even really exist, it's just we use these to distinct the difference between someone doing "wrong" and someone doing "right". (Which, I might add, are also based on opinion, but I don't feel like explaining those at the moment). So, yeah. There you go. But, if good and evil are relative and only based on what one person thinks is right or wrong then I should be able to kill some one just because I wan't to, I mean if it's optional then why can't I just murder or steal just because I think I'm doing "good?"Lightning ' ' ...deal with it 03:49, October 14, 2011 (UTC) It's still an opinion on whether you believe what's good or not. People you think that are doing wrong could think they're doing right. Think of it like this: What if someone was doing something you thought was wrong with good intentions? But, only in this case, he/she thinks they're good, while you don't. The only reason you would go to prison is because the majority of people think it's "wrong". Understand? (I'm part of the majority btw) Well that's your personal oppionion, but what I think is just the opposite, besides what I don't get is how does humanity define it's laws if good and evil are supposed to be relative how does man know that we shouldn't murder, why does that group of people think that particular way.Lightning ' ' ...deal with it 04:03, October 14, 2011 (UTC) Just saying, the author is in no wrong because topics are allowed to reposted after substantial time has passed. :) --http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110823111447/custombionicle/images/4/43/TDG.gif (Talk) 07:03, October 14, 2011 (UTC) @Sulfeirus - They define their laws just because they define their laws. Morality. People were raised to believe what their parents believed, most often, and not killing people was likely a belief that eventually spread. I know you have your own, personal beliefs, and I apologize, but your own beliefs contradict with the dictionary versions of "good" and "evil". Now, I'm not trying to interfere with your beliefs, let's not even bring that up. But we are going solely by dictionary definitions. Different people have different sets of moral codes. Moral codes determine good and evil. Everyone will always have a different opinion, but one cannot be the sole true one. Even if your beliefs contradict with that, can you at least let this pass on CBW? All we ask is that you don't call your character "evil". Cruel, dark, and several other adjectives that actually define your character are completely, 100% acceptable. I don't mind if this passess, I've lived with it for this long and I wasn't even going to vote anyways, I still don't agree with it, but I think it's hopless for me to vote against it when everyone else has already made up their minds. A forum like this has already been made before and only about three people voted against the policy and I can see already that six people have already voted for it and I didn't even vote last time, so if I was to vote against it my vote would be worthless.Lightning ' ' ...deal with it 13:31, October 14, 2011 (UTC)